Ram Chand Gupta, J. - (1.) THE present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 14.10.2010 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mohali, Annexure P5 vide which application filed by Petitioner under Section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act (for short the 'Act') for permission to contest the petition on all the grounds available to present Respondents No. 5 and 6 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle, was dismissed.
(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that, a petition for compensation under Section 166 of the Act was filed by Respondents No. 1 to 4 against Respondents No. 5 & 6 and the present Petitioner. The petition was contested by Petitioner as well as Respondents No. 5 and 6 by filing the separate written statements. Issues were framed. Evidence of claimants was concluded. Evidence of present Petitioner was also concluded. However, when the case was at the stage of evidence of Respondents No. 5 and 6, they were proceeded against ex parte. At that stage a point was raised on behalf of Insurance Company that present Respondents No. 5 and 6 have failed to contest the petition of the claimants and hence, the application under Section 170 of the Act which was already filed by the Petitioner -Insurance Company for permission to contest the claim petition on all the grounds available to Respondents No. 5 and 6 be allowed. However, the same was dismissed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mohali vide impugned order by observing as under: A perusal of the file reveals that the application Under Section 170 M.V. Act filed by the Respondent No. 3 Insurance Company is still pending for disposal. Heard on the said application. There is nothing on the file that this claim petition has been filed in collusion with Respondents No. 1 and 2. Rather, the Respondents No. 1 and 2 have hotly contested this claim petition. They have not only filed the written statement denying the accident, but they have also cross -examined the witnesses of the claimants effectively. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Respondents No. 1 and 2 have failed to contest this claim petition, nor there is anything on the file that this claim petition has been filed in collusion with them. Therefore, finding no merit in this application, the same stands dismissed.
(3.) IT has been contended by learned Counsel for the Petitioner -Insurance Company that earlier written statement was filed by Respondents No. 1 and 2 and they also cross -examined witnesses of claimants and thereafter, the case was adjourned to 03.08.2010. On that day Respondents No. 5 and 6 were proceeded against ex parte and the case was fixed for arguments. It is further contended by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that Petitioner -Insurance Company is having right to argue the claim petition on all the grounds on which present Respondents No. 5 and 6 could resist the claim of the claimants. Hence, it is contended that the impugned order be modified only to the extent that Petitioner -Insurance Company be permitted to argue the matter on all the grounds available to Respondents No. 5 and 6 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle.;